Mayne and Mayne
[2012] FamCAFC 56
•27 April 2012
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MAYNE & MAYNE | [2012] FamCAFC 56 |
| FAMILY LAW - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Leave to file further written submissions - Where the appellant sought to respond to issues raised in the respondent's submissions - leave granted |
| APPELLANT: | Ms Mayne |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Mayne |
| FILE NUMBER: | CAC | 114 | of | 2009 |
| APPEAL NUMBER: | EA | 78 | of | 2009 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 27 April 2012 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Canberra |
| PLACE HEARD: | Canberra |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Faulks DCJ, May and Strickland JJ |
| HEARING DATE: | By way of written submissions filed on 30 January 2012 and 6 February 2012 |
| LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: | Federal Magistrates Court |
| LOWER COURT JUDGMENT DATE: | 5 June 2009 |
| LOWER COURT MNC: | [2009] FMCAfam 559 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT: | Mr Watkins |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPELLANT: | Strong Law Pty Ltd |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Howard |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Farrar Gesini & Dunn |
Orders
That the appellant be given leave to file further written submissions and a minute of orders sought in response to the submissions of the husband filed
30 January 2012 and 6 February 2012.
That the appellant file such submissions and minute of orders sought on or before 4:00pm on 11 May 2012.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Mayne & Mayne has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| THE FULL COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT CANBERRA |
Appeal Number: EA 78 of 2009
File Number: CAC 114 of 2009
| Ms Mayne |
Appellant
And
| Mr Mayne |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
In the submissions filed on behalf of the wife on 6 February 2012, particularly in the first paragraph, it is complained that “the respondent has sought to contend matters which were not the subject of the appeal, nor were they dealt with on appeal”. In the sixth paragraph of those submissions, it is said that “The respondent’s submissions ought be rejected. If the respondent’s submissions are to be considered, natural justice would dictate that leave ought be granted to the appellant to be heard further.”
In our view, it would be appropriate to allow the appellant to file further submissions.
I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Full Court (Faulks DCJ, May and Strickland JJ) delivered on 27 April 2012.
Legal Associate:
Date: 27 April 2012
0
0
0